Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Estonia–Morocco relations


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   delete.  MBisanz  talk 00:13, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Estonia–Morocco relations

 * ( [ delete] ) – (View AfD) (View log)

another random combination from the obsessive creator. no resident embassies, only bilateral agreement is a minor memo of understanding http://www.vm.ee/eng/kat_176/3362.html LibStar (talk) 12:26, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Once again, a randomly created article that does nothing to assert notability in world affairs, and is not likely to be able to. -- Blue Squadron  Raven  14:59, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete - no notability evident in this random pairing. - Biruitorul Talk 15:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete--I see no proof of notability. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Merge and redirect to Foreign relations of Estonia . Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion . Given that where some bilateral agreement exists, there is scope for future development. So even if a particular relationship is deemed not sufficiently notable at this point in time, the existence of such a bi-lateral agreement should at least qualify that article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. The Estonian MFA indicates such a bilateral agreement exists or is in the precess of being drafted, hence there is scope for future expansion. therefore this article should be merged and a re-directed retained. Martintg (talk) 22:22, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Delete Wikipedia is not a directory or a collection of miscellaneous information like where embassies are and what year two countries recognized each other. Fails WP:N.Edison (talk) 22:44, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep, there is notability in this relationship, Morocco is interested in the Estonian oil shale industry and collaboration. Both countries have significant deposits and I recall reading about some collaboration in this area. This article has future potential for development, see here. Martintg (talk) 00:48, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * There's a problem with that logic. Yes, Morocco is interested in Estonia’s oil shale industry. And...? How does that equate a notable relationship? We need a source about the relationship that says A and B and C are notable components. We can't ourselves pick out facts found in a Google News search and proclaim them to be aspects of a notable relationship. Also, consider this: were it not for this "article" and editors feeling the need to "fill it in", would this (essentially trivial) fact ever have made it onto Wikipedia? And is there nowhere else this could be covered - perhaps Energy in Morocco? And, per WP:BTW ("Introduce links from related articles to avoid orphaning the article"), is there any article that could link to this one? - Biruitorul Talk 06:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Any aspect of, say France–United Kingdom relations, can and is covered in other articles, so what? How many articles actually back link to it, none explicitly, as far as I can tell. France and England has a common history that stretches back a thousand years. History between Estonian and Morocco is considerably shorter, but to say there is absolutely no potential for growth in this relationship, than thus no potential for groth of this stub is wrong. As I said before, Wikipedia's policy implies that if an article fails the notability criteria, the first option is to merge the article into another, rather than deletion . Given that there are some bilateral agreement, and potential for a significant relationship based upon energy co-operation, as reported in the press, there is scope for future development of this stub. So at very least this should qualify the article for merging rather than outright deletion. Re-directs are cheap. Martintg (talk) 17:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions.  —Shuki (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep pending outcome of discussion at the Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:25, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * the above cannot be considered a vote for keep, it does not assess the notability of relations. There is no need for marting to respond with the cut and paste text. LibStar (talk) 01:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions.  -- Russavia Dialogue 13:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, centralized discussion has started (Centralized discussion/Bilateral international relations), it makes sense to see and wait if that leads to usable outcome for this class of articles in general. --Reinoutr (talk) 09:48, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * This should not be counted as a vote, as it does not address the merits of the article. - Biruitorul Talk 14:06, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't be silly, any proper reasoning to keep an article should be taken into account. In this case, centralized discussion has started, so it makes perfect sense to pause the deletion of such articles while people try to develop a guideline. No harm is done by leaving these articles a few weeks longer. Finally, AfD is not a vote and I am sure we can trust the closing admin to weigh in all the comments in a way he or she sees fit at that time. --Reinoutr (talk) 16:59, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:NOHARM as you state, is not a valid reason for keep. LibStar (talk) 01:11, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.